SCIENCE IX SECONDARY SCHOOLS 16/ 



another — or a pure science help an applied science. \\*e have no 

 right to expect amthing else, for the pure sciences themselves 

 in the high schools, physiography, botany, zoolog}", physics, and 

 chemistry, are each regarded and treated as entities ha^"ing nothing 

 in common. Each teacher puts into his department of science 

 just what he pleases, with little or no regard to any other depart- 

 ment. If between them all something fundamental is untouched, 

 it is nobody's business. If this be true, and it cannot be success- 

 fully disputed, how could we expect a new science to be corre- 

 lated with the older departments already in possession. 



I cannot close my paper without some suggestions, hoping that 

 they reach some s)-mpathetic ears. ^^ly first suggestion is that 

 when a new applied science such as agrictdture is put into a cur- 

 riculum, all interested in science in the school ought to be the 

 ones to adjust it to its proper place and that the older depart- 

 ments ought to be correlated with the newcomer in such a way 

 tfiat what is already established in the school should contribute 

 as much as possible to the new course. To be more explicit, why 

 not let a general science course, or the physiography, botany, 

 and zoolog\% contribute all they can to agriculture, and this can 

 be a great deal : then agriculture can in its ttim be made ptu-ely 

 applied science, counting upon the help of other sciences to pre- 

 pare the ground. The agriculture thus arranged would be of 

 quite a different t}pe from the mixed pure and applied science 

 usually given. It would seem to be good business economy, to 

 say nothing of educational economy, to let what is already estab- 

 lished in the school do all it can, instead of running parallel 

 courses — thus doubling the teaching and halving the size of the 

 classes. Two years of agriculture rid of its pure science mix- 

 ture should be sufficient if built upon two years of pure science in 

 the first two years of the high school and correlated with the 

 pure science of the last two years. If there can be but one year 

 of agriculture, then it should be in the third or fourth year to 

 make it most effective. This idea of putting agriculture in the 

 first year is on a plane with the placing of stenography or book- 

 keeping in the first year — a bait to get the boy or girl into the 

 high school and unworthy of an educational program. Studies 

 should be placed where they belong in a consistent course. If 

 the school is turning out self-reliant boys and girls, that is suffi- 

 cient bait and the only inducement worthy of a school. 



I cannot help thinking that in all this talk about practical 

 courses, vocational training — continuation schools, industrial 



